Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Callan S.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45]
Philosophy & Science / Moral Conundrum - Short Changed
« on: April 26, 2013, 12:21:35 am »
Say you're at a pie shop - you're looking at the pies, then you overhear the customer ahead of you claiming he gave the counter person $10, not $5. Both sides speak their claim, in every slightly louder voices.

To you (or heck, lets be honest, to me), the customer seems to genuinely believe his claim. And while you find the lady behind the counter to be kind of bitter, but you think she's the kind who is honest in order to better stab at a world which made her bitter ("See, I am better!"), so is probably even more honest. Or maybe that's a charitable reading.

Customers an old man - he says the ten was the only note in his wallet. Maybe he miss saw.

Then again, if you're down to $10 in your wallet (to the point where you definately know that's all you've gote), why are you buying sugery treats?

For myself, I didn't know what to say - I was stuck in a loop of waiting for more information.

Anyone have anything like this raised in school? I mean, surely it matters somewhat (sure, it doesn't matter to being a more efficient cog in some corporate CEO's empire, but all the same...)

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 24, 2013, 11:42:49 am »
"How do you know the causal chain isn't just Person X deciding to throw the ball and then throwing it?"
How do you know it is?

It just feels that way?

Where's your evidence?

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:04:35 am »
Jorge is laying it down!  :)

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 24, 2013, 01:04:31 am »
Again, it was my fault. I didn't have a solid grasp on the BBT besides a few mentions in blog posts. I couldn't really properly explain its basis, only its 'profound' implications. After I fumbled with whatever random tidbits came to mind, she flatly stated:

You have to show me the evidence; otherwise, how do I know it's not just noise?

Now that I've read and at least mostly understood Bakker's major thesis on it, I should be better equipped to meet potential challenges.
The thing is, prior to the theory of evolution becoming widely accepted in scientific circles, she could have asked the same question if a theory of evolution was presented to her. What's the evidence? How does she know this evolution idea isn't just noise?

The question isn't so much 'is this correct?', but more like if Darwin asked you to help with his research on this kooky new idea he has.

She's right to be skeptical in that some research just doesn't go anywhere.

But clearly some research has been pivotal to our understanding today.

Quote from: Callan S.
Also the question to ask is have either of these people actually initiated new lines of research?

Ahhh... I have enough latent social graces to know that I should broach something like that v-e-e-e-ry delicately in this context. Aspersions...[/quote]
Oh for goodness sake...

I'll say I'm a son of a retired general practioner. When a GP asks intimate questions, it is not to cast aspersions. To a degree I am a reflection of that culture.

It amazes me how human scienctific practice still is...

3.c. She rejected the magic metaphor and vision analogy: "I don't need analogies, I need evidence."
What does she need evidence for?

She's not stating her own hypothesis that runs counter to this idea. What is her hypothesis on the matter? You don't need evidence if you already believe the idea (if you mentioned evolution she wouldn't demand evidence before talking further) - thus she believes another idea. What is that idea?

Perhaps putting it like this "If I mentioned the idea of evolution you wouldn't ask for evidence - you'd pretty much take it as a given. But if I said something counter to evolution, you would ask for evidence. With this blind brain theory thing, what theory of yours is it counter to so much so that it makes you ask for evidence?"

If she keeps asking for evidence, keep saying if you were talking about evolution that she whouldn't ask for evidence. Her asking for evidence shows she has a theory that BBT runs counter toward. It's not just about you providing evidence, can she articulate the theory that BBT runs counter to?

Also I'm tempted to say if Jorge says he understands it, then you have a reference to give. But I can't volunteer Jorge that way (I can only prod him with a sharp stick - poke poke poke! Okay, that didn't help...)


Along with Wilshire I'll say thanks for posting here. It helps give an idea of the perspectives involved.

Indeed, it is a genuine philosophical problem
Really? Why is that the case? Question begging.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 23, 2013, 06:57:49 am »
The evidence? Well, uhm...
I don't know what her problem with the evidence is?

It's also the binary people seem to default into that either it's proven to them right now, or it's utterly wrong.

When there's a middle ground of just trying to form a replica of the described model in their mind. Heck, every time you read fantasy you're (attempting to) replicate someone elses model. It's not an uncommon thing to do.

She seems to grasp the model enough to get the idea that conciousness is an illusion - so ignoring evidence for now, ask her where does the model seem inconsistant with itself?

I think being asked that will cross reference real world understanding of structure (because that's where we get our idea of consistancy) with the model - and slowly start to tie it to real world elements. Ie, the evidence (that this is probably a worthwhile line of research) will slowly become clear, if you just ask if the model seems consistant with itself.

Also the question to ask is have either of these people actually initiated new lines of research? Most scientists haven't really - they refine what's already been done. So they wont percieve a crazy theory paper as a potential new line of research to follow, because they just haven't done/don't do new lines of research.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 22, 2013, 03:35:12 am »
I think it'd be interesting to raise the topic of 'conciousness' first. I suspect that a scientist might harbour a number of ideas on the matter, but not recall them to mind simply upon contact with a verbally dense document.

If they were to recall the ideas first, they might be able to start hesitantly pinning them to the words of the document, like 'heuristic compression', for example - one might think of how one simplifies our memory of things (or how art teachers have to teach you to draw what you see, not how you think of the object - because the latter isn't the same, as its been subject to compression).

Serwe references the horns again at the beginning of the interro rape sequence.
Does she? Damn, I wish I'd noticed that! What's it mean?

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:22:15 am »
There is not a lot of fluff. Not a lot of confusing dialect and complex sentence structure. The only thing that may be confusing are the terms that are very specific to the research itself, and these things are usually explained in the appendix, accompanied by all the references they used for their work.
So how do you explain this thing alot of us seem to be going through, often called conciousness? In a clinical fashion?

I mean, that our skull is full of synapses has been known for ages. But has that stopped ideas like dualism?

If the idea of conciousness was littered with fluff (never mind if the idea of conciousness itself is fluff), you'd have to include the fluff in order to reference it and begin to dismantle it.

It's a difficult situation. What do scientific works which pertain to dismantling superstitions through scientific testing refer to? Don't they refer to the superstitious fluff at various points?

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:11:05 am »
That's rather unfair, and avoids much of their responses.
I think my responce left some room for appeal and discussion, rather than just being a concluding judgement.

If it didn't and just seemed just a concluding judgement from me, okay, fair enough you responding with a concluding judgement yourself.

Okay, your judgement that it's just unfair (case closed) is heard and that you offer no appeal process is recognised.

Their issue here seems primarily to be with Bakker's language and the way he presents his ideas.
I talked about it, but it just turned out to be unfair.

It takes two to tango - writer AND reader. I think you're quote just looks at one side as if they handle all of the dance themselves. I say that with room to appeal though, let me make clear this time.

is taking the easy way out - he's trying to appear reasonable by wanting the whole thing, with complete research and writing up, explained to him. Or he'll ignore it.
My impression is that a mere rewording of Bakker would be more fruitful than these sorts of aspersions.
I certainly projected my values onto it. That doesn't mean the physical actions I describe aren't happening.

But if the rule is that if I'm not completely affirming then I'll be dismissed, okay. But if I'm completely affirming, then everyones right (well, except Bakker).

Pride is the main issue here. No one wants to take a random document out of the blue and let it shame by them acknowledging 'hey, some bits make sense, so there's some legitimacy to it, but I don't understand alot of it - oh, I guess that reduces my hard earned legitimacy somewhat?'. Who wants to hand over their legitimacy to a random scrap of paper? Really?

Is one obliged to respect what seems to one like incoherent ramblings? Which is more effective in writing, engagement or alienation?
Obliged by some sort of god being? Or obliged by a recognition that tons of ideas that have atleast been scientifically proved in history have been dismissed as incoherant ramblings before that, by many people?

That a cursory look at history shows that time and time again sufficiently advanced truth can appear to many as incoherant rambles? And there's really not much to make it clear that oneself is going to be immune to that effect?

You can argue I'm wrong and nobodies every treated an eventually scientifically proven idea as incoherant rambling. If so I atleast agree you're consistant with how you see history.

But if you agree rather than argue that, well what, are you advocating that these people you know will be the ones who are immune to what many others have succumbed to in the past - seeing a coherant idea as incoherant?

Otherwise they are obliged by intellectual honesty to treat themselves as potentially sucumbing to the 'incoherant ramblings' effect.

At any rate, neither you nor I can rebuke another for perceived pridefulness without coming off, as Bakker might put it, as "Hitler condemning Jesus Christ for hatefulness".

So there was a rebuke somewhere? An implication that someone simply MUST change their behaviour? Perhaps you're saying from me?

To me, you've come in with a problem, like a guy bringing in a car to a garage - I'm just a mechanic. You think the problem is X, I tell you it's Y. When I tell you it's Y, it's my technical evaluation - not a finger waving proclamation of how thou must live. You can take your car to another garage. In a way, I'm indifferent if you don't care to engage the services of my garage. I was just offering a quote.

Never mind I have to wonder at christianities death toll total over the ages, compared to hitlers score. But damn I'm stupid to wonder such things and obviously start fighting a discussion war on a second front as well as the first. And yet...intellectually I'm compelled to wonder.

1. Whether there's not anything in my expatiation or in Bakker's writings directly which they can more or less grasp.
If I sounded like I was giving aspersions before, I wouldn't put it this way!

Do you see any components, like heuristic compression, which make some amount of sense to you? Then just talk about what makes some amount of sense to you first, before putting forth documents - that's just part of regular discussion.

2. Whether any of it seems interesting to consider (given their purviews) from Bakker's or even another's/their own perspective.
3. Whether there's not anything insightful or plausible in Bakker's evidences, given what they know about the brain.

I'll try that out next week, if possible.

Also, I ought to have noted that one of the above is not actually a native speaker of English! You can probably guess which one: they complained that "wow, my vocabulary is not that big"...
Vocabulary is just a compression method as well, to say more with fewer words. It's like a trade off, reader wise - make it less verbose, but it becomes longer, and people get bored before reading (applies to me as well!), verses concise vocab, makes it shorter, but starts falling down in immediate understanding with various sizes of audiences (size in proportion to vocab).

Then again maybe short vocab is Bakker being lazy as well, making him have to write less - it cuts that way too! Mind you, hey, he's gotta write us books, aye! Instead of all this brain wankery! ;) Joking!

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 21, 2013, 08:36:21 am »
There was this bus ticket information guy at the bus stop the other day - supposedly to give out new information (mostly about them scraping paper tickets, the butt heads). I tried asking him another question about the zone we were in, when using a ticket machine.

It was really quite facinating how he fluidly veered around the fact that he didn't have a clue, even as he wore the big blue jacket of the company in question.

How good people are at avoiding saying they don't know.

Your first example
This just doesn't look like good science to me, and while I'm open to new ideas they must be conveyed in a way I can understand.
is taking the easy way out - he's trying to appear reasonable by wanting the whole thing, with complete research and writing up, explained to him. Or he'll ignore it. He's not treating it as an opportunity to start research himself, he just wants someone else to do all the research, then present it to him. In a way it's alot more open minded than most because I think he would listen to it when presented in the form he refers to. But in another way it ignores question marks as any kind of opportunity. He wont say 'Well, there are some question marks there, but I aint got the time to chase them up (there's a universe full of question marks and I have my own to pursue)'. Everyone wants to think they have good reason to ignore something, so he invents a good reason. Ironically, it's a symptom of heuristic compression itself - the compression being to cut off any 'I wonder' question marks (they eat up calories like the Dickens!) and instead to go with 'no, there's no reason to think about that'.

She: None of this makes any sense!
I see this alot - you say something complicated, but even if you stuck 'the sky is blue' in the middle of it, the person would still say EVERYTHING you said made no sense! 'The sky is blue' made no sense?  'Heuristic compression' isn't that complex to grasp. Perhaps applying it to the brain is, but then again understanding refraction of light is complicated as well. But no acknowledgement of even part of the document making sense.

Pride is the main issue here. No one wants to take a random document out of the blue and let it shame by them acknowledging 'hey, some bits make sense, so there's some legitimacy to it, but I don't understand alot of it - oh, I guess that reduces my hard earned legitimacy somewhat?'. Who wants to hand over their legitimacy to a random scrap of paper? Really?

And so I complete my knocking of the readers...

I think spare times a thing. Were talking question marks which may be of interest to pursue. Someone who's schedule is full (or atleast they think it's full) obviously doesn't have any time left for new question marks. Though they most likely wont admit it.

Thoughts? Does Bakker just make perfect sense to you all?
I've studied other models who's texts made more sense years after the first read - like the gamist/simulationist/narrativist theory of roleplay inclination, for example. If you're a long term roleplayer that might seem utterly alien from first contact.

But there I go avoiding saying I don't understand it/cannot full model all of it that is described.

Perhaps we could break it down to the question marks that, whether we grasp the question right or not, we find the question interesting.

News/Announcements / Re: Welcome to the Second Apocalypse
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:27:49 am »
I yet live!

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45]